Global Warming Much Much worse than predicted.

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Deny ignorance foul, OP

-2 ATS points

resume...




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

FlyersFan
Dude ... 'HIDE THE DECLINE' .... (Michael Mann)
Your 'global warming is much worse' ... not gonna' fly.


Read this and stop perpetuating this ignorance, it's things like this that make people who understand science completely dismiss people like you that refuse to look at science to form an actual opinion on a scientific matter but rather on a bunch of other non scientists completely illogical knee jerking.


“Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline.”
November 21, 2009 by greenfyre
BPSDB One of the supposedly most damning quotes from the CRU Hack “scandal” is:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Phil Jones

which the Deniers are citing as “proof positive” or data alteration , falsification, etc.

I suggested that, as with all of the other quotes, as they stood it didn’t actually say anything one way or another. Having worked in the sciences I said that to me it sounded like someone discussing a clever technique from the journal Nature for dealing with statistical noise or something of that sort.

Since then we learn that:


Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

and that (emphasis added)

The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.


source



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Results due to Antarctic ice range from lowering sea levels by 6 centimeters to a 14-centimeter increase. The 2007 report forecast a reduction of 2 centimeters to 14 centimeters, due to higher snowfall than surface melt. The UN said in the earlier report that its understanding of how the southern continent loses ice from glaciers flowing into the sea wasn't good enough to include in its prediction.

The authors of the latest report said there has been “substantial progress in ice-sheet modeling” since 2007. Even so, there remain “significant challenges” in modeling Antarctic glaciers and ice sheets that terminate at the sea, and the forecast for their contribution to sea levels by 2100 was the same across all different emissions scenarios examined, unlike with Greenland.
Source: www.smh.com.au...

(Emphasis mine)

The ice is melting! We're doomed! Run for your lives! We don't understand all this data, and it might even show the opposite of what we're predicting, but run for your lives anyway!

And in the meantime, stop using electricity, stop moving from place to place, quit your jobs, and pay us more money.


I dunno, I have found hole after hole after hole in the Global Warming theory, and yet some people still refuse to believe it might be a hoax. Carbon dioxide is absorbing our heat like a blanket, but don't look at what heat it can actually absorb. Carbon dioxide is poisonous, but don't think about the fact that every animal on Earth produces it and every green plant on Earth absorbs it for food. We're going to experience massive famines due to increased temperatures, but never mind the fact that food grows in warmer temperatures and not in colder temperatures. There won't be enough oxygen to breathe, but ignore the fact that photosynthesis, which is partially driven by carbon dioxide levels, drives oxygen production. Hurricanes will increase in severity and frequency, but ignore the data that shows just the opposite is happening. Polar bears are going extinct, and that's proof of what we say, but ignore those actual numbers that show their population is expanding. The sea levels are going to rise and swallow us all, but don't look at actual trends... concentrate only on this little area where we did the survey... looky, we found icebergs!... and simultaneously ignore weather trends that buck the theory because they are, of course, isolated events and not indicative of actual trends.

And while you're at it, ignore completely the shoddy modelling that remained hidden for so long and the damning e-mails with slanderous statements that those evil hackers found... you weren't supposed to see that. Never mind how we get the data we use... you just don't understand how a parking lot doesn't really absorb heat and throw off measurements, or how volcanic carbon dioxide doesn't matter when we make measurements. Oh, and forget we said anything about hockey sticks.

One would think that somewhere, sometime, somehow, people would finally "get it" that it's just a scam, a power play by governments to grab more power and control over people and extort more money. But, alas, such is apparently not the modus operandi of the average human being.

If anything has been proven beyond a shadow of the doubt by Global Warming, it is that people are unable to differentiate facts from fantasies, have an inherent need to have their thoughts given them by others in power, and cannot assess simple logical arguments. Sad...

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




The ice is melting! We're doomed! Run for your lives! We don't understand all this data, and it might even show the opposite of what we're predicting, but run for your lives anyway!

And in the meantime, stop using electricity, stop moving from place to place, quit your jobs, and pay us more money.


No one is saying that. Don't be silly.



I dunno, I have found hole after hole after hole in the Global Warming theory, and yet some people still refuse to believe it might be a hoax.


That's because the holes don't turn out to be holes just black paint on a wall that deniers love to try run through. Y'all must love smacking your heads against concrete.



Carbon dioxide is absorbing our heat like a blanket, but don't look at what heat it can actually absorb.


I've seen many a thread where you do the two-step with another member in on this particular issue and you've been proven wrong in each of them.



Carbon dioxide is poisonous, but don't think about the fact that every animal on Earth produces it and every green plant on Earth absorbs it for food. We're going to experience massive famines due to increased temperatures, but never mind the fact that food grows in warmer temperatures and not in colder temperatures. There won't be enough oxygen to breathe, but ignore the fact that photosynthesis, which is partially driven by carbon dioxide levels, drives oxygen production.


No one discounts the benefits of Co2, quit putting words in people's mouths... it's rude.



And while you're at it, ignore completely the shoddy modelling that remained hidden for so long


Not hidden, you just didn't know where or what to look for. I wasn't even looking for them and found them.



and the damning e-mails with slanderous statements that those evil hackers found... you weren't supposed to see that.


Which myself and others have posted a million times and when shown in context amount to zip that could be considered scandalous. There's one just one post above yours as a matter of fact. Still don't see it?



Oh, and forget we said anything about hockey sticks.


Why would anyone want to forget that when the hockey stick has been vindicated?



One would think that somewhere, sometime, somehow, people would finally "get it" that it's just a scam


Indeed, I think that all the time... when are you people going to get it? When are you going to wise up to the scam perpetuated by the oil cartels?



a power play by governments to grab more power and control over people and extort more money. But, alas, such is apparently not the modus operandi of the average human being.


You exposed the power grab and control over people and extortion in your own thread recently, it's really a shame that you let politics keep you from connecting the dots. It ain't us "greenie weenies" that's for damn sure!



Sad...


Indeed.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


You make speculation after speculation, but you have yet to make any holes.

Shipping lanes opening up across the Arctic for the first time in known history.

Soils unfrozen for the first time in over a million years, revealing ancient forests.

These point make global warming a fact, even if many people choose to live in denial.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


I have done the math several times now, and there is a clear difference between measured changes, and rate of change, and future predictions.

Take a shot, show me where my math is wrong.

I think the real conspiracy is that climate change effects are being greatly under estimated. This is the point of the thread.

I would say what they are doing wrong is assuming that the rate of change will not continue at the current rates.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Take a shot, show me where my math is wrong.


The dead giveaway should have been the estimates for the total contribution of the ice sheets and total sea levels, cited in the article you linked to.

You confused yourself into believing that this - "Greenland's ice added six times more to sea levels in the decade through 2011 than in the prior 10 years"- means, the rate of contribution from ice sheet outflow has increased sixfold. What it actually means is that the new updated estimate is now included into the projection, hence the seemingly increased rate. Nobody (except you) is even remotely considering the possibilty sea level rise could accelerate by six times every decade. As you can read in the section from the leaked draft quoted below, the total central projection is 0.11 m - compare that to your 1.5 meters for Greenland alone and you might get an idea where you got it wrong.



Leaked IPCC draft report

Unlike in the AR4, these projections include a contribution from changes in ice-sheet outflow, for which the central projection is 0.11 m. There is only medium confidence in these ranges of projected global mean sea level rise, because there is only medium confidence in the likely range of projected contributions from models of ice sheet dynamics, and because there is no consensus about the reliability of semi-empirical models, which give higher projections than process-based models. Larger values cannot be excluded, but current scientific understanding is insufficient for evaluating their probability.


Just another sensationalist thread with faulty math added to your port folio and one lesson to learn here. Reading comprehension, some at least minor scientific knowledge and a whole lot more integrity is vital when it comes to writing threads about climate change.

The actual leaked IPCC draft projections for sea level rise.


It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate
observed during 1971–2010 for all RCP scenarios. For the period 2081 to 2100, compared to 1986 to
2005, global mean sea level rise is likely to be in the range 0.29–0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.36–0.63 m for
RCP4.5, 0.37–0.64 m for RCP6.0, and 0.48–0.82 m (0.56–0.96 m by 2100 with a rate of rise 8–15 mm yr–1 over the last decade of the 21st century) for RCP8.5.



edit on 15-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: is worse than we thought



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74

No one is saying that. Don't be silly.

Considering that the first part of the quote you posted is an almost perfect translation of the source article (maybe, we're not sure, possibly, could happen, might be), the appropriate excerpt of which I posted, I assume you mean the last quoted paragraph. In this case, that is EXACTLY what is being pushed forth: less energy usage. That means less travel, which leads to less ability to drive to and from a job, and less electric power usage. There's no possible way in reality you can combine less energy production with anything except less energy usage.


That's because the holes don't turn out to be holes just black paint on a wall that deniers love to try run through. Y'all must love smacking your heads against concrete.

I have to say, you do have a point about us smacking our heads up against a wall. That's what it feels like when facts are presented, then twisted around to try and say the exact opposite of what the data shows.


I've seen many a thread where you do the two-step with another member in on this particular issue and you've been proven wrong in each of them.

Speaking of beating one's head against a wall... in this case a wall of complete and total ignorance of energy transfer characteristics, thermodynamic application, and chemical analysis.


No one discounts the benefits of Co2, quit putting words in people's mouths... it's rude.

I guess I imagined the few dozen threads I have engaged in where this is seriously put forth.


Not hidden, you just didn't know where or what to look for. I wasn't even looking for them and found them.

Congratulations. I guess one just has to be a believer to see some things.

Or maybe you just came along later than I did. The models are easy to find now, since they were initially leaked. Before that, no such luck.


Which myself and others have posted a million times and when shown in context amount to zip that could be considered scandalous. There's one just one post above yours as a matter of fact. Still don't see it?

What I see are excuses and after-the-fact damage control. Were I to use that sort of supposedly loose language in a report, I would be a laughing stock.

As everyone connected with James Hansen, the IPCC, and East Anglia should be.


Why would anyone want to forget that when the hockey stick has been vindicated?



There's that brick wall again...


Indeed, I think that all the time... when are you people going to get it? When are you going to wise up to the scam perpetuated by the oil cartels?

The scam perpetuated by the oil cartels... wow. At least they produce something people need. How about the scams perpetuated by the governments, who produce nothing useful, but still charge at least as much as the oil cartels profit.

I happen to like the ability to jump in my car and move myself to another location reliably when needed. I'm sorry you don't.


You exposed the power grab and control over people and extortion in your own thread recently, it's really a shame that you let politics keep you from connecting the dots. It ain't us "greenie weenies" that's for damn sure!

Please look back through that thread. You apparently missed the part where I explained the purpose of this scam. It's nothing more than an attempt to peg the dollar (or the Euro/Amero actually) to energy usage instead of production, should the production peg fail.

That's not letting politics dictate my opinions. I am pointing out holes in the theory (whether you want to acknowledge them or not). You are arguing for an unproven, poorly-conceived political scam perpetuated in the guise of science. That's letting politics keep you from connecting the dots. I see the dots just fine; as you pointed out, I keep banging my head against them trying to explain the actual science behind the propaganda.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I for one appreciate your thread and don't see it as doom and gloom but probably a natural occurances that the earth goes through. Since 2007 we have hit records here in the northwest. I don't know anyone who lives where I do that does not notice it. It's Sept 15th so we are experiencing an Indian summer but hitting 90-96 degrees everyday is a bit extreme. Maybe I am more sensitive to the changes, but even if I wasn't it's well documented that there has been less snow and higher temperatures 2 years in a row here.

I am not sure if people are arguing it isn't happening or are saying they aren't noticing it. Maybe in some areas people aren't noticing it as much but we are. I read today that it was due to a higher jet stream than usual - whatever that means. I thought that was pretty constant but evidently it shifts? Regardless - it it getting warmer.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

You make speculation after speculation, but you have yet to make any holes.

Oh, I've poked plenty of holes. Just because some people refuse to acknowledge the bucket is leaking does not mean it is holding water. It means they look silly trying to carry water in a bucket with no bottom.


Shipping lanes opening up across the Arctic for the first time in known history.

Attributable to an influx of warmer-than-normal current through the Bering Strait. The cause of that current being warmer than normal is up for debate so far as I know.


Soils unfrozen for the first time in over a million years, revealing ancient forests.

Wait, "revealing ancient forests"? That in itself proves they are not necessary for life to flourish.


These point make global warming a fact, even if many people choose to live in denial.

No point can make a fact by definition. Period. That's exactly the kind of attitude i was referring to above.

You mention the Arctic melt, which is an anomaly that has begun occurring recently and bears investigation. In an earlier thread, I was presented evidence that there was a current shift to blame, and I not only acknowledged that the theory was sound and backed by what appeared to be reliable empirical data, but I have even begun using that information in my other posts. I accept an observation that has supporting evidence and no gaping scientific holes. If (a huge if) I ever find data that closes the holes in Global Warming Theory, as in explains why carbon dioxide changes physical characteristics in smaller quantities, the atmosphere will not tend to absorb more water vapor from the ocean when it increases in temperature, warmer atmospheric temperatures will somehow not be conducive to increased plant growth, or the Goldilocks effect has ceased to function due to human occupation of the planet, then maybe I will start to take it seriously. That has not happened; the opposite is in fact true. I accepted the theory when first proposed; I started to question it when predictions began to either fail or appear wildly speculative and political impropriety began to be an integral part of the theory. I investigated and found enough evidence to declare it a scam.

If you choose to believe it, that's fine. It's a free country. You are free to believe that green wombats from Alpha Centauri are orbiting the planet with heat rays aimed at us to change our environment to suit their species for all I care. But the moment you decide that because of this belief, my access to plentiful energy and my financial well-being must be sacrificed for your belief, that's where I draw the line.

I am not required to believe in your fantasy, nor should I be required to pay for your fantasy.

I will continue to speak out against Global Warming Theory, carbon credits, and the doom porn perpetuated by James Hansen and his minions as long as such include any requirement on me to change my lifestyle based on flawed scientific fantasy.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




Considering that the first part of the quote you posted is an almost perfect translation of the source article (maybe, we're not sure, possibly, could happen, might be), the appropriate excerpt of which I posted, I assume you mean the last quoted paragraph. In this case, that is EXACTLY what is being pushed forth: less energy usage. That means less travel, which leads to less ability to drive to and from a job, and less electric power usage. There's no possible way in reality you can combine less energy production with anything except less energy usage.


I don't know what kind of logic you posses if acquiring data and stating what it means equals screaming and hollering, panic and crying. Less travel? Why? Is your bicycle or feet broken if so, is there really nothing else we can come up with to solve the problem of dirty energy? Humanity has reached it's capacity to problem solve...we've not made any progress toward that goal already?



Speaking of beating one's head against a wall... in this case a wall of complete and total ignorance of energy transfer characteristics, thermodynamic application, and chemical analysis.


Not so and I have a hard time believing you can't see it. I don't know what's preventing you from acknowledging it.



I guess I imagined the few dozen threads I have engaged in where this is seriously put forth.


I guess you did because they don't exist. Stating that rapid Co2 increase in the atmosphere has a harmful effect does not equal screaming that we need to rid ourselves of the stuff or that it is some kind evil entity we need to purge.



Congratulations. I guess one just has to be a believer to see some things.

Or maybe you just came along later than I did. The models are easy to find now, since they were initially leaked. Before that, no such luck.


I guess you've forgotten the post of mine you came across that provided you with what you said you'd been looking for, for years. I remember stating that the information had been up for years.



What I see are excuses and after-the-fact damage control. Were I to use that sort of supposedly loose language in a report, I would be a laughing stock.

As everyone connected with James Hansen, the IPCC, and East Anglia should be.


Again, I don't know how you are able to see things differently than they actually appear... these are not excuses or damage control, they are the emails in their entirety vs little snippets. There's a website which I've long lost the link for that contains every single hacked email in full. I've read them all. I don't just speak from my ass or from religious fervor on the issue of climate change. I've done in depth research, the actual science, the politics, the media, the players. I know very well what I am talking about. I don't just read someone's opinion on something and either agree or disagree, I go to the sources and look for myself so I can see the whole picture. If you really want to back up your words on climategate, why not go look for yourself... read the entire emails and see if you can come away with your opinion unchanged (at least on what the contrarians claim about them).



Please look back through that thread. You apparently missed the part where I explained the purpose of this scam. It's nothing more than an attempt to peg the dollar (or the Euro/Amero actually) to energy usage instead of production, should the production peg fail.


I didn't miss anything, including the post you tied James Hansen et al into the conspiracy. It had been very informative up until that point... still is, I very much appreciated the history lesson, you just lost at me at that point. I think I literally did the Jackie Chan meme face. I will never understand this NWO/agenda 21 conspiracy tie in to climate change... it's completely illogical. The world economy is based on fossil fuel, we go to war after war over it, it lobbies every government in the world, essentially controls western and middle eastern governments... but somehow it's the people saying we need to rethink fossil fuels that are the problem? Seriously?



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 



Nobody (except you) is even remotely considering the possibilty sea level rise could accelerate by six times every decade.


Now you finally see my point. Congrats.

Why not?

Global warming has accelerated for 3 or 4 decades, why not 3 or 4 more? What is going to change in order to change the rate of acceleration? Will we stop burning so many carbon fuels? Not likely.

If the Arctic is ice free in a few more summers, global warming is likely to increase in acceleration, not de-acelerate.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
There are always data and statistics that can back up either argument, either way.

The true measure is observation over time.

Ok, so if all the ice is subsiding in the North, where is it going?

Are there not reports that the Antarctica ice sheets are growing?

Where I live in the Southern Hemisphere, this winter has been the coldest, wettest for many decades.

I live in a Coastal city, over the past 100 years there have been storms that have battered the beaches and sandhills, knocked down jettys and piers, splashed over coastal houses....well well before "Global Warming" or reduced ice sheets in Finland.

I can assure you, right now, that the ocean at the local beaches is not one inch higher than it was when I was a kid in the 1960s, bodysurfing in the waves.

So the question is, if the ice sheets are going, where is the excess water going?

Are the Aliens taking it?



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
It's the Sun.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I'm already involved in a heated thread so I won't get involved here. I just thought you'd like to see a picture. (And I'd like to see if I can insert one into a post.)




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74

Is your bicycle or feet broken if so, is there really nothing else we can come up with to solve the problem of dirty energy? Humanity has reached it's capacity to problem solve...we've not made any progress toward that goal already?

Let's take an example. Quite a few people commute 20 miles each way to work. In a car, that's a half-hour each way, or an hour a day spent in travel. On foot, with an average walking speed of 3 mph, that's almost 7 hours each way, or almost 14 hours a day spent in travel. If one works eight more hours a day, that's 22 hours spent getting to the job, doing the job, and returning home. Seeing that a day consists of 24 hours, that leaves 2 hours to sleep, eat, shower.... and people wonder why I use the word "fantasy" so much when discussing this subject.

Bicycles.. wonderful devices. Ever try to ride one through the pouring rain? How about the snow? Do you really care so little for humans that you would decree they must endure the ravages of nature, the illnesses that would be caused by such exposure, and the physical exertion, impossible for some people, associated with bicycling long distances?

We have made progress toward better energy sources. We have hydro power on practically every river in the country capable of being dammed. We have wind turbines, which I will admit I was initially skeptical of. There are experiments ongoing about using wave energy (my personal favorite new technology); I just did a report on the Wave Dragon design and implementation of a pre-commercial 1.4 MW unit in the Danish North Sea. But it is foolhardy to stop using a tried and perfected energy source without a viable replacement ready to take the load.

I will be the first to celebrate the day we can shut down the last fossil fuel power plant in favor of cleaner sources of energy. That day has not yet arrived. Please be patient while actual engineers do the necessary work to make it a reality.

Even with cleaner electricity, however, the transportation issue will not disappear. In order for automobiles to provide the needed ranges and power for transportation, they must be powered with fuel that has sufficient energy density to allow a reasonable amount to be carried on board. Electric cars are wonderful for urban commuting, and hybrids are fine for suburban situations, but for rural, industrial, and commercial use we have nothing that approaches fossil fuels. Perhaps one day we will find something, but until then I live in a world where reality says we need to keep existing while we search.


I don't know what's preventing you from acknowledging it.

Reality.


I guess you did because they don't exist.



Nice try; I almost spent the next three hours looking up those old threads. But then I realized even if I did find them you would probably find some warped reasoning to say they really didn't exist or were the result of some oil-cartel-inspired conspiracy, and I have a sensor to finish designing. So we can just chalk this up to me banging my head on that wall of ignorance.


I guess you've forgotten the post of mine you came across that provided you with what you said you'd been looking for, for years.

Not the post, but I had forgotten it was you. Forgive me.


Again, I don't know how you are able to see things differently than they actually appear... these are not excuses or damage control, they are the emails in their entirety vs little snippets.

I have read them, in their entirety. Several I will agree with you on: the snippets were taken out of context. Others, I do not agree with you on. The snippets were actually consistent with the tone and wording of the entire message, and did indicate, to me at least, that either the writers were incompetent or they were trying to cover up improper actions.

The very essence of science is communication of results and methodology. Without those two things, every discovery is suspect. The very fact that official emails had to be hacked and leaked is in itself a major clue that something untoward was happening. There should have been nothing, absolutely nothing in those emails that had not been fully disclosed publicly.


I didn't miss anything, including the post you tied James Hansen et al into the conspiracy. It had been very informative up until that point... still is, I very much appreciated the history lesson, you just lost at me at that point. I think I literally did the Jackie Chan meme face. I will never understand this NWO/agenda 21 conspiracy tie in to climate change... it's completely illogical. The world economy is based on fossil fuel, we go to war after war over it, it lobbies every government in the world, essentially controls western and middle eastern governments... but somehow it's the people saying we need to rethink fossil fuels that are the problem? Seriously?

I am one of those people who say we need to rid ourselves of dependence on fossil fuels!

I don't say it because of carbon dioxide or non-extant rising ocean levels; I say it because of the political turmoil and concentration of power it has led to. I simply also acknowledge the reality that the Global Warming agenda is biased to further centralize that power and to actually increase the power of the oil cartels, as well as the fact that we have no viable substitute for all present uses of fossil-fuel-based energy. As I mentioned before, wave technology is clean, efficient (the Wave Dragon basically uses wave energy to create a river and hydro dam in the middle of the ocean), plentiful, and probably cheap. That's a great energy source and far far far preferable to any fossil fuel plants. I also think properly designed nuclear energy has promise and should continue to be a focus, even though we do face serious challenges in fuel disposal. I am constantly looking for information on potential new battery designs, the single largest hurdle to making electric vehicles practical outside urban environments. I support pollution controls (as long as the target is pollution and not plant food), and I would like nothing better than to have the Amazon rain forests decreed off limits to clear cutting (I refuse to allow such here on my 90 acres; I have actually run loggers off my property for even suggesting it).

The difference between us is not that you want clean and I want polluted. The difference is that I take a balanced and realistic approach to the problem. I want a solution to problems, not excuses for perceptions. I expect theories to be supported with reliable, verifiable evidence and to give repeatable results that are easily peer-reviewed, which require all methodology and results to be openly and completely communicated to the public. I expect, no, demand that alternate theories be given press so they can be either proved viable or disproved.

I demand scientific integrity and honesty. Sorry we disagree.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
SHEESH....There's alot to read in this thread...now I forgot why I came here in the first place....Oh yeah....I just got back from visiting my home town and man oh man...all the local ponds are bone dry...and they were not little duck ponds either they were good size ponds I used to ride my horses on the far bank(water training for trail) and the guys that fished on the other side of the bank at the same time...the ripples I would make in the water never got big enough to scare their fish away...That big of ponds, I counted four all pretty much same size...GONE...EMPTY...NADA...

I literally cried...I hope to God this is just a drought and not Global Warming...



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Dianec
I for one appreciate your thread and don't see it as doom and gloom but probably a natural occurances that the earth goes through. Since 2007 we have hit records here in the northwest. I don't know anyone who lives where I do that does not notice it. It's Sept 15th so we are experiencing an Indian summer but hitting 90-96 degrees everyday is a bit extreme. Maybe I am more sensitive to the changes, but even if I wasn't it's well documented that there has been less snow and higher temperatures 2 years in a row here.

I am not sure if people are arguing it isn't happening or are saying they aren't noticing it. Maybe in some areas people aren't noticing it as much but we are. I read today that it was due to a higher jet stream than usual - whatever that means. I thought that was pretty constant but evidently it shifts? Regardless - it it getting warmer.


I can appreciate a good discussion on these matters. When we are used to a certain type of weather/seasons its comfy. It's easier to grow food and so much more.

Our history teaches us natives moved from city to city and sometimes to higher land... nomads, if you will.

The Earth is constantly changing. Even Space Weather affects us. Some parts are warming while others aren't. The technical term for "it" is not global warming, it's climate change that needs not taxed.

The root of the problem in my opinion is climate change and we are not solely responsible, if at all... i'ts not us.... it's Space Weather.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by shells4u
 


droughts happen and always have but we're having such intense ones now along side flooding. where i live the lakes and streams are drastically lower than they were just a few years ago. we can't water our yards and trees are dying. i'd like to pretend global warming/climate change isn't real....... but it is and every year it gets worse.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


One year is NOT a trend, Charles.

And even though the area covered is greater, the volume (thickness of the ice) is much less; there is actually LESS ice in 2013 than in 2012.

The Arctic Ice "Death Spiral"

Arctic Sea Ice Data: Realist view versus Skeptic view



top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join